Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LEE RODGER MEIKLEJOHN – Appellant
Versus
RANJEET SINGH SIDHU & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of mareva injunction applications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. plaintiff's arguments for mareva injunction (Para 15 , 16) |
| 3. existence of good arguable case (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. assessment of risk of dissipation (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. rejection of assumptions on dishonesty (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. need for concrete evidence of asset dissipation (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 7. establishing case against d6 (Para 46 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 8. risk of dissipation by d6 (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 9. rejection of speculation on d6 (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 10. setting aside applications overview (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 11. validity of ex parte mareva injunction (Para 91 , 96 , 101) |
[1] There are three applications before the court concerning a Mareva injunction to restrain several defendants from disposing of their assets up to the value of GBP10 million, which relates to an alleged fraudulent investment scheme involving multiple corporate entities. The plaintiff seeks to preserve the d
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
